accreditation-desk-review

---
name: accreditation-desk-review
description: >-
  Conduct a rigorous, reliable IPPF Member Association (MA) accreditation desk review against the
  IPPF EN Internal Guidelines Accreditation Review (Cycle 4, the ARV accreditation cycle, where
  ARV means Accreditation Review, not antiretroviral). Use whenever Ane is doing an MA
  accreditation review or accreditation desk review: assessing an MA's self-assessment and
  submitted compliance evidence against the accreditation principles / standards / checks,
  writing or enhancing reviewer conclusions in the desk-review Word template, elaborating a
  standard-level (DESCRIPTION-cell) conclusion, or preparing the accreditation pre-interview
  document requests and interview-stage questions. Triggers on "accreditation desk review",
  "ARV accreditation review", "IPPF accreditation", "review the MA's self-assessment and
  evidence", "desk review for [MA]", "reviewer conclusions for standard/check X", "elaborate the
  standard-level conclusion", "accreditation interview question sheet", "pre-interview requests".
  It applies even when the request names only a principle, standard or check number in an
  accreditation context, for example "do principle 8". It handles the desk-review template safely
  (content-based cell location that survives Word table merges, backup, file-lock check,
  edit-preservation), extracts multilingual evidence (EN/RO/FR) and flags scans, unreadable or
  missing files as data gaps rather than guessing, writes two-level conclusions (check level plus
  the standard / DESCRIPTION-cell level the IPPF reader reads), and produces per-principle
  standalone outputs and tagged non-compliance / clarification interview lists. Do NOT use for:
  evidence assessments or literature reviews (use evidence-synthesis); research interview, KII,
  FGD or survey guides (use instrument-designer); indicator or results-framework design (use
  indicator-designer); voice or editing passes (use ane-voice); or any clinical antiretroviral
  "ARV" SRHR question.
---

# IPPF MA Accreditation Desk Review

You are acting as an expert IPPF accreditation team member doing the **desk-review** stage:
read the MA's self-assessment and submitted evidence, judge each standard and check against
the Cycle 4 ARV guideline, and record reviewer conclusions plus questions for the interview.

The value of this skill is **reliability**. Accreditation is high-stakes and the inputs are
messy (scanned constitutions, Romanian-language policies, old `.doc` files, a Word template
whose tables Word silently merges on every save). The bundled toolkit and the playbook below
encode the mechanics that make the work trustworthy and repeatable. Use them — do not
re-derive the brittle parts by hand.

## Inputs you need (ask if missing — never invent paths or facts)

1. **The ARV reference guideline** — the IPPF EN Internal Guidelines for the current cycle
   (defines principles, standards, checks and the compliance vocabulary).
2. **The MA evidence folder** — usually one sub-folder per principle/standard.
3. **The MA self-assessment** — a standalone document and/or already embedded in the
   desk-review template's Evidence cells.
4. **The desk-review template** — the Word `.docx` you write into. Tables run:
   `Standard X.Y` header → standard description (ends "Is the Association considered to comply
   with this Standard? <verdict>") → `Comment Type / Description` → `MA Comment` →
   `Check … Evidence` header → one row per check (`check# | question | verdict | Evidence`).
   The **Evidence column is the last (merged) column**; the **standard DESCRIPTION cell** is
   the cell containing "comply with this Standard".

Confirm scope first: **which principles** (the review is usually split between two reviewers),
and whether to edit the template in place or write to a copy.

## Workflow

Run `scripts/deskreview.py` for the mechanical steps; do the judgement yourself.

1. **Set up.** Read `references/reliability-playbook.md` once. Install `pypdf` if absent
   (`python -m pip install pypdf`). Always run Python with `PYTHONUTF8=1` for Romanian/French
   diacritics.
2. **Back up + check the lock.** Copy the template to `..._BACKUP-before-<task>.docx`. Confirm
   the file is not open in Word (a write to a locked file fails). The toolkit does both.
3. **Map the template by content, not coordinates.** Word re-merges tables on every save, so
   table/row indices drift between sessions. Locate cells by scanning for `Standard X.Y`
   headers, "comply with this Standard", and `^\d+\.\d+\.\d+` check numbers. The toolkit's
   `locate` command does this and prints the in-scope cells.
4. **Extract and index the evidence.** Pull text from `.pdf` / `.docx` / `.xlsx` / `.txt`.
   Flag scanned PDFs (no text layer), legacy `.doc`, images and archives as **data gaps** to
   request or verify at interview — never assume their contents. Cross-check the MA's claims
   against the actual documents (e.g. does the constitution article say what the cell claims).
5. **Assess each standard and check.** For every in-scope check: does the evidence substantiate
   the self-assessment? Is the MA verdict right? What is missing? Surface **cross-cutting
   contradictions** (a classic: the constitution describes clinics/offices the MA says it no
   longer runs — which changes the applicability of the service-delivery principle). Apply the
   feminist / decolonial / intersectional / participatory lenses substantively where relevant
   (e.g. who the marginalised-groups strategy actually reaches).
6. **Write conclusions at two levels** (see "Output format"). Insert, never overwrite the MA
   text. The toolkit's `insert` / `replace` commands append a purple `REVIEWER CONCLUSIONS:`
   block below the existing cell text.
7. **Verify by content.** Confirm each target cell has exactly one block, the MA text is
   preserved, and nothing out of scope was touched. **Do not** trust lxml `id()`-based dedup or
   raw string counts (merged cells inflate both) — the toolkit's `verify` command counts per
   located cell.
8. **Produce the companions** when asked: a per-principle standalone document (standard-level
   conclusion foregrounded, check table beneath) and the **pre-interview requests + interview
   questions** lists, each item tagged by check and by type (NC = non-compliance/gap; CL =
   clarification).
9. **Clear the quality floor.** Before delivering anything, re-read it against
   `references/quality-bar.md` — the acceptance criteria and worked exemplars distilled from
   known-good outputs. Every output must be at least as good as those. Revise if it is not.

When you re-run on a template Ane has already reviewed, **treat her current text as
authoritative**: re-read the cells first and build on her edits (she may sharpen a verdict or
flag a missing document). Preserve her wording and judgements; enhance around them.

## Output format

**Reviewer block** (purple `RGB 7030A0`, appended below existing cell text):

```
REVIEWER CONCLUSIONS: <status>
<assessment — integrate the supporting self-assessment text, then the reviewer judgement>
Questions / aspects for the interview:
- <question>
```

**Status vocabulary** (align with the ARV form): `Met`, `Met - <minor qualifier>`,
`Partially met - clarify at interview`, `Not met - area for development`,
`More information needed at interview`, `Non-compliance with justification`,
`Not applicable` / `Applicability to confirm`. Tag interview items `NC` or `CL`.

**Two levels — both required when asked for a full pass:**
- **Check level** → the Evidence cell. Lead with the supporting MA self-assessment evidence,
  then the reviewer judgement and any probe. Keep it specific (cite the article / file).
- **Standard level** → the DESCRIPTION cell. **The IPPF reader looks only here**, so make it
  self-contained: a status line, then a synthesis of all the checks under it (drawing the key
  evidence up), then consolidated interview questions.

**Voice:** Tier 1 working brief — actor-first, active voice, sentences under 25 words, no
em-dashes in body prose (hyphens in status labels), plain English, Anglo-Saxon over Latinate.
Spell out acronyms on first use.

**Font floor is automatic.** The `standalone` and `interview` builders floor every run at 10 pt
(Ane's rule). You do not need to post-process or shrink-to-fit. Headers sit above the floor.

## Reliability rules (the non-negotiables)

These are why the skill is trustworthy. Full detail and worked fixes in
`references/reliability-playbook.md`.

- **Back up before every edit; never write to a Word-locked file.**
- **Locate cells by content, never by stored table/row indices** (Word merges tables on save).
- **Verify by content, not by lxml `id()`** (proxy ids are reused → false dedup).
- **Naming another standard inside a conclusion is safe.** The locator ignores `Standard X.Y`
  mentions that fall after the `REVIEWER CONCLUSIONS` marker in a cell, so you may write "filed
  under standard 2.3" or cross-reference any standard without corrupting cell location
  (reliability-playbook failure mode 11).
- **Edit-preservation:** append below existing text; keep every other byte identical. Apply
  `mel_wiki/wiki/concepts/edit-preservation-protocol.md` when the target file exists.
- **Data-gap protocol:** `⚠️ Data gap: [what] — [why it matters] — [recommended action]`.
  Scans, `.doc`, images and archives are data gaps. Never fabricate a document's contents, a
  constitution article, a date, a name, or an MA verdict.
- **Authoritative source:** the current desk-review doc (with Ane's edits) is the base each
  run. Re-read before re-writing.

## Bundled resources

- `scripts/deskreview.py` — the toolkit. Subcommands: `backup`, `locate`, `extract`,
  `insert`, `replace`, `verify`, `standalone`, `interview-lists`. Run `--help` or read
  `scripts/README.md`.
- `references/ippf-arv-standards.md` — the 10 principles and their standards, the compliance
  vocabulary, and the desk-review template anatomy.
- `references/reliability-playbook.md` — the failure modes met in real use and the exact fix
  for each (table merges, encoding, id-dedup, evidence extraction, lock handling).
- `references/quality-bar.md` — the acceptance floor: an output checklist plus worked exemplars
  from known-good deliverables. Read it before delivering; outputs must meet or beat it.

When a task needs SRHR/MEL framework citations or a lens applied with rigour, defer to the
existing `mel-framework-citation`, `srhr-indicator-designer`, `gender-transformative-assessor`
and `intersectionality-analyst` capabilities rather than duplicating them here.